U.N. Peace Keeping Force in the region

[Skogan]

Takeo makes a good point regarding the security of Israel if a Palistinian state were allowed. Namely, he included a foreign military presence. I'll assume he was refering to a U.N. lead peace keeping force.

Why does Israel reject the notion of a peace keeping force in the region? I know there are talks of allowing CIA monitors (which I think is a HORRIBLE idea), but why not a U.N. force there to provide a substantive defense of Israel, so it no longer has the need to hold the land? It seems to me that Israel would get all the security benefits without having to face the world criticism and economic hardships that keeping their own force there causes. Also, it would take away a great deal of the terrorist arguement for hostility against Israel.

So I ask again, what is the Israeli reasoning for not allowing a large U.N. peacekeeping force in the occupied territory?


Skogan

[Mediocrates]

Because they are best ineffective and at worst, another arm of politics of the UN itself. As a fighting force it isn't flexible or fast enough, their chain of command is a slow garbled mess and they exist more often than not to be recorders of facts instead of active participants.

For example their continued presence in the north around the Saba Farms area hasn't ameliorated the shelling. Hezbollah just shoots over their heads and the IDF shoots back.

[Skogan]

Good point. I also remember the U.N. force in Somalia had Pakistani troops designated to provide backup support if we had a "blackhawk down" during the warlord snatching mission. Which they were ready to do... a few days after we needed em.

Still, it seems in other parts of the world, U.N. forces provide a deterent, but you may be right.



Skogan

[takeo]

the un should be the direction, but why not put the troops on the ground under direct NATO- or US-leadership as in Bosnia or Kosovo?
anyway the troops near the libanese border have no real autority to do something or to shoot, so this is not a good example.
The troops near the israeli border should be able to controll the border area and shoot armed intruders.
ps: the somalian operation failed mostly because of the us-policy to kill and hunt all somalian leaders and making lots of ennemies instead of cooperating.

[Skogan]

Not to hijack my own thread, but the somali mission failed because the pakistanis were selling there intel to the warlords, and Clinton refused the Generals request for armored personal carriers in the event we had to go into the city. He felt it would look like we were escalating the war, (so much for the lesson of vietnam, don't let the politicians fight the war.)

The U.S. had to go after Adid, because he was hijacking all the food that was being distributed, taking it away from the population and hording it for his men. (Feeding the populace was the whole reason we were there in the first place.)

But back to the main point. I'll look for something on the net that explain Israels position on this (if anyone knows a link, feel free to post it.) I do think peace keeping forces have been useful in the past, and it would be one thing for the Arabs to attack Israel, but an attack against a unified Nato presence doesn't seem realistic. Not if they knew we were intent on a response.


Skogan

[takeo]

I think the whole idea of going after Aideed was wrong, you could have convinced him by other means. ($$$) instead of making it an all-out war of somalia against th US.

in general israel is against foreign troops because that would mean israel would once and for all loose the possibility to reoccupy the WB and gaza.

[Iori Yagami]

That`s just plain bull ****. As Mediocrates said, UN troops are inaffective at best. There are in deed UN troops patrolling southern Lebanon, yet they do nothing to stop the Hizbollah shelling of northern Israel. They were there when 3 soldiers were abducted by Hizbollah terrorrists, yet they have done nothing to stop it; even better, they filmed it on tape. There was a nice UNRWA building in Jenin, in which terrorrists were hiding.
BTW, there are foreign peace keepers in Hebron, it doesn`t stop Israel from reoccupying the city.

EDIT : wow, even krap is censored here (spelling mistake is intentional)? Heh :)

[takeo]

krap indeed

the peace-keepers in hebron and southern libanon have a very limited task, because israel didn't want them to effectively conduct military operations or prevent israeli military operations, that prevents them from taking real actions, there are also too few of them, what i am talking about is a massive military operation as in bosnia or kosovo near the borders.

[Iori Yagami]

Israel can`t "want them to effectively conduct military yada yada yada" at southern Lebanon, or don`t want them to "yada yada yada" at southern Lebanon, because Israel doesn`t control southern Lebanon. Anyway, I`m not going to post my whole stance about the un forces, I believe that Mediocrate`s summs it pretty well.
And I wonder, what have you got to say about the UNRWA building in jenin?

[takeo]

Nothing, i don't know enough about it.
However the un-forces were in southern Libanon when it was still occupied by israel and they don't have enough capacity and possibilities to be really effective.

[Vic]

Originally posted by takeo
[...] the un-forces [...] don't have enough capacity and possibilities to be really effective.
Funny, isn't it?
Why not stock them up if the UN is seriously interested in maintaining peace?

[takeo]

because that wasn't allowed according to their official mission.
Maybe because israel didn't want it, or the US, or the libanese, anyway any foreign presence in Palestine/israeli border should have more capacities, a well determined duty and be more impressing to make a substantial contribution in maintaining peace. (pretty much as in Kosovo). I think the UN has learned from its mistakes in other countries such as Ruanda or Bosnia.

[Vic]

Originally posted by takeo
because that wasn't allowed according to their official mission.
Maybe because israel didn't want it, or the US, or the libanese, anyway any foreign presence in Palestine/israeli border should have more capacities, a well determined duty and be more impressing to make a substantial contribution in maintaining peace. (pretty much as in Kosovo). I think the UN has learned from its mistakes in other countries such as Ruanda or Bosnia.
Source?

[takeo]

source of what?

[Vic]

Originally posted by takeo
source of what?
Of the information in your post #12

[takeo]

http://www.un.org/Depts/DPKO/Missions/unifil/unifilF.htm


"Since March of 1978, the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) has been deployed to oversee the withdrawal of Israeli troops. "

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/lbisindx.htm

"It called on all parties concerned to cooperate fully with the United Nations and to exercise the utmost restraint. The Council also noted that the United Nations could not assume law and order functions that were properly the responsibility of the Lebanese Government. It welcomed that Government’s first steps in that regard, and called on it to proceed with the deployment of its armed forces into the Lebanese territory vacated by Israel as soon as possible, with the assistance of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL).
The Council welcomed measures taken by the Secretary-General and others to augment UNIFIL, stressing that its redeployment should be coordinated with the Government of Lebanon. "

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/lebwith.html


http://www.un.org/Depts/DPKO/Missions/unifil/unifilF.htm

[elke]

It welcomed that Government’s first steps in that regard, and called on it to proceed with the deployment of its armed forces into the Lebanese territory vacated by Israel as soon as possible, with the assistance of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL).

Which Lebanon never did, as they did not wish to be "protecting Israel's borders for them." UN resolutions? The only UN resolutions that count are the ones that make Israel do things it doesn't want to do. Lebanon and other Muslim countries answer only to the "higher authority", and screw UN.

[Iori Yagami]

I`ll second elke`s post, exactly what I wanted to say.

[takeo]

as i said unifil's possibilities are too limited, which was stated too in the links i gave, a mission as in Bosnia or Kosovo with a wide range of possibilities would allow them to accomplish its mission and force the parties to comply.
There are also un-resolutions condamning violence, recognising israel and recognising the right of israel to live withing secure borders.

[elke]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by takeo
[B]as i said unifil's possibilities are too limited, which was stated too in the links i gave ,

Then what good are they?

a mission as in Bosnia or Kosovo with a wide range of possibilities would allow them to accomplish its mission and force the parties to comply.

That was a NATO mission, not UN; and led by US. It is doubtful that US would agree to get involved on such a scale in the West Bank.

There are also un-resolutions condamning violence, recognising israel and recognising the right of israel to live withing secure borders.

Oh, yes, of course. These don't get even a peep out of anyone, although they have been blatantly ignored for over 50 years.

I have an idea: how about Israelis say that they answer only to a higher authority. The Talmud does not allow Israel to abide by the UN resolutions, so these are moot. Since these jokers seem to believe "French Muslim" translations of the Talmud portraying "The World Nations As Dogs", maybe they will lay off Israel as they have layed off the Muslim states? :)

[takeo]

"That was a NATO mission, not UN; and led by US. It is doubtful that US would agree to get involved on such a scale in the West Bank. "

it is actually under the autority of the UN but managed by NATO, that was the deal reached with the russians and yougoslavians in kosovo and Bosnia.

"I have an idea: how about Israelis say that they answer only to a higher authority. The Talmud does not allow Israel to abide by the UN resolutions, so these are moot. Since these jokers seem to believe "French Muslim" translations of the Talmud portraying "The World Nations As Dogs", maybe they will lay off Israel as they have layed off the Muslim states? "

actually most palestinians are not referring to "Higher Autority" but to their rights to live as a nation without being expelled or occupied. Also Syria, nor Jordan or Libanon, have the Shariah as their jurisdiction system.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by takeo
There are also un-resolutions condamning violence...
Where exactly are the UN resolutions that specifically condemn Palestinian and Islamic terrorism against Israel?

[takeo]

Security Council Res. 69 March 4, 1949 Acceptance of Israel as a Member State of the United Nations

Security Council Res. 338 October 23, 1973 Call for Cease-fire and Negotiations

Security Council Res. 1322 October 7, 2000 Deplores Violence at Start of Intifada

Security Council Res. 1373 September 28, 2001 Terrorism


etc.

[takeo]

resolution 1397, passed March 12, calls for an end to the violence and terror, and affirms a vision of two states within secure and recognized borders. Resolution 1402, passed March 30, calls for an immediate cease-fire, the withdrawal of Israeli forces from West Bank towns, and a return to the Tenet work plan.

[elke]

Originally posted by takeo
resolution 1397, passed March 12, calls for an end to the violence and terror, and affirms a vision of two states within secure and recognized borders. Resolution 1402, passed March 30, calls for an immediate cease-fire, the withdrawal of Israeli forces from West Bank towns, and a return to the Tenet work plan.

You just proved my point: these resolutions call for a modicum of compliance from the other side, and...nada! Not a peep out of anyone regarding doing what they are supposed to. Where is the cease-fire? Where are negotiations? Sadat pays with his life for a peace agreement...

Aargh!

[takeo]

actually there are no negociations because Sharon doesn't want to negociate with Arafat, and the palestinian terror against civilians has been condamned by the EU, the US and the UN.
However there are indeed no sanctions, as there are no sanctions either for israel that did never comply to many un-resolutions

[elke]

actually most palestinians are not referring to "Higher Autority" but to their rights to live as a nation without being expelled or occupied. Also Syria, nor Jordan or Libanon, have the Shariah as their jurisdiction system.

Then what's their excuse?

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by takeo
Security Council Res. 69 March 4, 1949 Acceptance of Israel as a Member State of the United Nations

Security Council Res. 338 October 23, 1973 Call for Cease-fire and Negotiations

Security Council Res. 1322 October 7, 2000 Deplores Violence at Start of Intifada

Security Council Res. 1373 September 28, 2001 Terrorism


etc.

Wrong again, Takeo. Better luck next time.

338 calls for "all parties" and makes absolutely no mention whatsoever of Palestinian terrorism against Israeli citizens.

1322 is a blatant anti-Israel resolution which condemns Israel and Sharon, and makes only a specific mention of Palestinian casualties. No mention of Israeli victims of Palestinian terrorism.

1373 again makes no mention of Palestinian terrorism or Israeli victims.

Let me repeat my question:

Where exactly are the UN resolutions that specifically condemn Palestinian and Islamic terrorism against Israel?

[takeo]

res. 1322

"Calls for the immediate cessation of violence, and for all necessary steps to be taken to ensure that violence ceases, that new provocative actions are avoided, and that the situation returns to normality in a way which promotes the prospects for the Middle East peace process; "

Resolution 1373
"Deeply concerned by the increase, in various regions of the world, of acts of terrorism motivated by intolerance or extremism"

"Reaffirming the principle established by the General Assembly in its declaration of October 1970 (resolution 2625 (XXV)) and reiterated by the Security Council in its resolution 1189 (1998) of 13 August 1998, namely that every State has the duty to refrain from organizing, instigating, assisting or participating in terrorist acts in another State or acquiescing in organized activities within its territory directed towards the commission of such acts, "

it is clear enough the un has condamned terrorism on various occasions and in well defined cases, which include palestinian terrorism against civilians.


also: http://www.ict.org.il/documents/documentdet.cfm?docid=32

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/UN/unres635.html

Security Council Resolution 338

"Calls upon all parties to the present fighting to cease all firing and terminate all military activity immediately, no later than 12 hours after the moment of the adoption of this decision, in the positions they now occupy;

2. Calls upon the parties concerned to start immediately after the cease-fire the implementation of Security Council resolution 242 (1967) in all of its parts;

3. Decides that, immediately and concurrently with the cease-fire, negotiations shall start between the parties concerned under appropriate auspices aimed at establishing a just and durable peace in the Middle East."



Security Council Resolution 1397 (March 12, 2002)

"Affirming a vision of a region where two States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side within secure and recognized borders,

"Expressing its grave concern at the continuation of the tragic and violent events that have taken place since September 2000, especially the recent attacks and the increased number of casualties,

"Stressing the need for all concerned to ensure the safety of civilians,

"Stressing also the need to respect the universally accepted norms of international humanitarian law,

"Welcoming and encouraging the diplomatic efforts of special envoys from the United States of America, the Russian Federation, the European Union and the United Nations Special Coordinator and others to bring about a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East,

"Welcoming the contribution of Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah,

"1. Demands immediate cessation of all acts of violence, including all acts of terror, provocation, incitement and destruction;

"2. Calls upon the Israeli and Palestinian sides and their leaders to cooperate in the implementation of the Tenet work plan and Mitchell Report recommendations with the aim of resuming negotiations on a political settlement;

"3. Expresses support for the efforts of the Secretary-General and others to assist the parties to halt the violence and to resume the peace process;

"4. Decides to remain seized of the matter.""

General Assembly Resolution ES-10/8


"Emphasizing further the importance of the safety and well-being of all civilians in the whole Middle East region, and condemning in particular all acts of violence and terror resulting in the deaths and injuries among Palestinian and Israeli civilians,"

"1. Demands the immediate cessation of all acts of violence, provocation and destruction, as well as the return to the positions and arrangements that existed prior to September 2000;

2. Condemns all acts of terror, in particular those targeting civilians;



Also condemns all acts of extrajudiciary executions, excessive use of force and wide destruction of properties;



Calls upon the two sides to start the comprehensive and immediate implementation of the recommendations made in the report of the Sharm El-Sheikh Fact-Finding Committee (Mitchell Report) in a speedy manner;

5. Encourages all concerned to establish a monitoring mechanism to help the parties implement the recommendations of the report of the Sharm El-Sheikh Fact-Finding Committee and to help create a better situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories;

6. Calls for the resumption of negotiations between the two sides within the Middle East peace process on its agreed basis, taking into consideration developments in previous discussions between the two sides, and urges them to reach a final agreement on all issues, on the basis of their previous agreements, with the objective of implementing Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973); "

[takeo]

excuse for what?

[NewsGuy]

You're quoting the resolutions shows the same thing I already said, which is there's no mention of Palestinian terrorism. Only vague references to "all sides must stop the violence."

It is like saying that in the case of al Qaeda and the U.S., that "all sides must stop their violence," indicating that all violence is equivalent.

So, with thousands of Arab terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians, has there ever been a UN resolution condemning these events?

[takeo]

yes, just look in the quotes: there is explicit mentioning of condamnation of violence against civilians during the israeli-palestinian conflict, which means that the un is condamning palestinian violence as well.

"that all violence is equivalent"

What do you expect, israel not complying to any un-resolution but only the palestinian violence and illegal actions condamned?
actually in the case of the israeli-palestinian conflict Israel violated more un-resolutions, geneva-conventions and other international laws than the Palestinians. that's why this war isn't comparable to the conflict between al-quaida and the US, where there was clearly a perpetrator and a victim, the us also didn't vioate any international law during its war in afghanistan as far as i know. In the Middle East that's not so clear.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by takeo
the us also didn't vioate any international law during its war in afghanistan as far as i know. In the Middle East that's not so clear.
Really? Going into a country and bombing it and then violently overthrowing the government is in accordance with international law? I don't think so. Nonetheless, the U.S. is right to do it, and should hopefully do the same in other Islamic countries as well.

As for calling to an end of "all violence," that's all very nice, but does not specifically condemn the thousands of Palestinian acts of terrorism. These resolutions are biased like dozens of others that either equate the Israeli victims of Arab terrorism with their murderers, or simply ignore the Arab terrorism altogether.

[takeo]

"Really? Going into a country and bombing it and then violently overthrowing the government is in accordance with international law? I don't think so. Nonetheless, the U.S. is right to do it, and should hopefully do the same in other Islamic countries as well. "

actually it was an action supported and allowed by special un-resolutions, and the taliban was never recognised by the un (nor by any other country except pakistan and SA) as the official government of Afghanistan. the seat in the UN was occupied by a member of the Northern alliance.
I don't think either that the US made any violation against the geneva-conventions (except maybe the detention in Guantanamo)


"As for calling to an end of "all violence," that's all very nice, but does not specifically condemn the thousands of Palestinian acts of terrorism. These resolutions are biased like dozens of others that either equate the Israeli victims of Arab terrorism with their murderers, or simply ignore the Arab terrorism altogether."

it does condamn it, those crimes are condamned as you can see above.
yes israel is equated with the palestinians, because it is equally responsible for the ongoing problems and has been violating many international laws, more so than the palestinians.

[elke]

Originally posted by takeo
excuse for what?

For not complying with the UN resolutions. If it's not Shariah, then why are they still at it? Why did they attack in 1948 and 1973, why did they not sign peace treaties, why are they still supporting terrorists?

Oh, yes, I forgot: it's all Israel's fault.

[takeo]

well the PLO, Jordan and Egypt did, Syria did not recognise israel for the obvious reason that israel is occupying a part of Syria, other people because israel is still violating many other un-resolutions, and finally some people (iraq for example) because they consider that all Jews who came after the 1880's are colonists who should go back to their land. this was a more popular current of the Arab nationalist movement some decades ago and the reason for the 1948 war.

[elke]

Originally posted by takeo
well the PLO, Jordan and Egypt did, Syria did not recognise israel for the obvious reason that israel is occupying a part of Syria, other people because israel is still violating many other un-resolutions, and finally some people (iraq for example) because they consider that all Jews who came after the 1880's are colonists who should go back to their land. this was a more popular current of the Arab nationalist movement some decades ago and the reason for the 1948 war.

PLO - verdict is still out whether or not they have recognized Israel. However, the verdict is set as to whether or not they are in compliance with the UN resolutions - they are NOT. The only question is - WHY.

Jordan and Egypt have recognized Israel, and are reaping quite a few benefits from this fact. I am not sure regarding their record on UN resolution compliance as of now...

Syria's "obvious" reason? When Sadat came to Jerusalem, Israel was still "occupying" the Sinai. Sadat got Sinai in return for a piece of paper recognizing Israel and diplomatic relations with her. You would think that baby Assad would realize, with his Western education, that you negotiate first, and then get what you want, not the other way around. Israel's compliance or non-compliance should matter not at all. Syria was the belligerent, and they were soundly defeated.

Iraq and others - now, THAT's a case of a pot calling a kettle black. :D

In general, there seems to be a misunderstanding of what UN resolutions really mean. Even if we take as a given that these resolutions are "fair" to both sides, they provide a "light without the tunnel". They are the end result, not the logistics of getting there. I read laws and regulations for a living. These things are notoriously vague, on purpose, because it is impossible to predict all the details that must be taken into account when the resolution is actually implemented. The question at the negotiating table should be "What can we all do to implement these resolutions", not "We won't talk until these resolutions are implemented" - because it's impossible to implement them without negotiating. And it's impossible to negotiate under the gun of unfettered suicide murderers.

[takeo]

"PLO - verdict is still out whether or not they have recognized Israel. However, the verdict is set as to whether or not they are in compliance with the UN resolutions - they are NOT. The only question is - WHY. "

Who do you mean, Israel?

"Syria's "obvious" reason? When Sadat came to Jerusalem, Israel was still "occupying" the Sinai. Sadat got Sinai in return for a piece of paper recognizing Israel and diplomatic relations with her. You would think that baby Assad would realize, with his Western education, that you negotiate first, and then get what you want, not the other way around. Israel's compliance or non-compliance should matter not at all. Syria was the belligerent, and they were soundly defeated. "

The Golan-heights were conquered in a war started by Israel.
There were negociations in the past but apparently it didn't work.
You are right that you have to negociate first and than get what you want, the same applies for israel however, if it wants an end of the violence it will have to start negociating, not the other way around.



"In general, there seems to be a misunderstanding of what UN resolutions really mean. Even if we take as a given that these resolutions are "fair" to both sides, they provide a "light without the tunnel". They are the end result, not the logistics of getting there. I read laws and regulations for a living. These things are notoriously vague, on purpose, because it is impossible to predict all the details that must be taken into account when the resolution is actually implemented. The question at the negotiating table should be "What can we all do to implement these resolutions", not "We won't talk until these resolutions are implemented" - because it's impossible to implement them without negotiating. "


I fully agree, well said, yet the first condition must be that both parties are willing to negociate about the implementation of those resolutions and agree with the ultimate goal of those resolutions.

"And it's impossible to negotiate under the gun of unfettered suicide murderers."

i'm not so sure about that, negociations about how to make an end to the violence (another un-resolution) are crucial too according to me.
one certainly won't stop the violence by destroying cities, ministries and police-headquarters.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by takeo
actually it was an action supported and allowed by special un-resolutions
Do you make this up as you go? Which "special resolution" might that be?

So far as I know, the U.S. and its allies were only authorized by NATO, which is not an international legal body at all.

So far as the UN, the U.S. argument was that it "already" has authority to use military force under Article 51 of the UN Charter, which, btw, also gives Israel the right to use military force against the Palestinians.

And FWIW- there is also no UN resolution authorizing the U.S. and the UK to create and enforce the no-fly zones in Iraq.

Nonetheless, there is no UN condemnation of these acts becasue: #1. It is the U.S. and we're a big, strong and wealthy country, and #2 The U.S. is right to take all these actions and much more. Nations like the U.S. and Israel who are under the constant threat of Arab and Islamic terrorism should be able under all international standards, to defend themselves forcefully.

I don't think either that the US made any violation against the geneva-conventions (except maybe the detention in Guantanamo)

And when exactly do you think this matter will be brought to the Hague?

[takeo]

it won't unfortunately, as well as the Jenin war-crimes won't be brought for justice (yet)

"Do you make this up as you go? Which "special resolution" might that be?
So far as I know, the U.S. and its allies were only authorized by NATO, which is not an international legal body at all.
So far as the UN, the U.S. argument was that it "already" has authority to use military force under Article 51 of the UN Charter, which, btw, also gives Israel the right to use military force against the Palestinians. "

resolution 1373 “Reaffirming the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence as recognized by the Charter of the United Nations as reiterated in resolution 1368 (2001)"

,“Reaffirming the need to combat by all means, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts,"

resolution 1368: "Unequivocally condemns in the strongest terms the horrifying terrorist attacks which took place on 11 September 2001 in New York, Washington (D.C.) and Pennsylvania and regards such acts, like any act of international terrorism, as a threat to international peace and security;"



"Calls on all States to work together urgently to bring to justice the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these terrorist attacks and stresses that those responsible for aiding, supporting or harbouring the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these acts will be held accountable;"

". Calls also on the international community to redouble their efforts to prevent and suppress terrorist acts including by increased cooperation and full implementation of the relevant international anti-terrorist conventions and Security Council resolutions, in particular resolution 1269 of 19 October 1999;"

israel never got such specific licence, because the actions against israel are not considered as purely international terrorism but a consequence of the israeli policy against the palestinians. According to the uN charter every country has the right to attack its aggressors, and this two un-resolutions made it legal for the us to go as well after the people responsible for the attacks and "those responsible for aiding, supporting or harbouring the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these acts".

Because israel is violating the charter by its occupation-policy and other continuing violations (which the us didn't), Israel's actions are no longer considered self-defense and it doesn't get the same goodwill as the US to fight terrorism.








"And FWIW- there is also no UN resolution authorizing the U.S. and the UK to create and enforce the no-fly zones in Iraq. "

that's absolutely right, and France, Russia and China always resisted to this illegal policy;


"Nonetheless, there is no UN condemnation of these acts becasue: #1. It is the U.S. and we're a big, strong and wealthy country, and #2 The U.S. is right to take all these actions and much more. Nations like the U.S. and Israel who are under the constant threat of Arab and Islamic terrorism should be able under all international standards, to defend themselves forcefully."

actually the us has veto-power in the un-security council.
Yes every nation should have the right to defend itself, forcefully if necessary, INCLUDING syria and the palestinians (recognised as a nation). However defending themselves and occupying land for decades, colonise it and denying people the right to return, is NOT a legitimate way of self-defense (as well as suicide-bombing civilians, i agree).

[elke]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by takeo
Who do you mean, Israel?

No, I mean the Arab states and/or PNA.

The Golan-heights were conquered in a war started by Israel.
There were negociations in the past but apparently it didn't work.
You are right that you have to negociate first and than get what you want, the same applies for israel however, if it wants an end of the violence it will have to start negociating, not the other way around.

So was Sinai, - in the same war, I might add. I disagree with you heartily regarding when it's appropriate to negotiate. Violence of this kind - targeting specifically non-combatants - is nothing more nor less than blackmail. Egypt did not send suicide murderers into Israel to get what they wanted, and they got the whole Sinai in exchange for a piece of paper. Fair exchange? Not really, but adequate to deal.

i'm not so sure about that, negociations about how to make an end to the violence (another un-resolution) are crucial too according to me.
one certainly won't stop the violence by destroying cities, ministries and police-headquarters.

Negotiating with someone who won't - or can't - deliver won't produce results.

[takeo]

"So was Sinai, - in the same war, I might add. I disagree with you heartily regarding when it's appropriate to negotiate. Violence of this kind - targeting specifically non-combatants - is nothing more nor less than blackmail. Egypt did not send suicide murderers into Israel to get what they wanted, and they got the whole Sinai in exchange for a piece of paper. Fair exchange? Not really, but adequate to deal. "

However occupation is also a kind of blackmail and violence. How would you feel if Mexico was occupying Texas and would only give it back on some conditions? i really condamn the suicide-actions, but sometimes i wonder what else could the palestinians dothan to use violence to force Israel to observe the un-resolutions, if no western state is ready to really pressure israel? Remember before the first intifafeh not a single israeli PM ever even considered it.
Egypt got the Sinai back because it promised peace (the same the palestinians will promise), but also because israel could not afford to stay at war with a country of 50 millions of people. I think this negociations also came after quite some us-pressure on israel.



"Negotiating with someone who won't - or can't - deliver won't produce results."

how do you know they can't or won't deliver peace once israel agrees to deliver its part of the deal?

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by takeo
...resolution 1373... resolution 1368...
Again, you're quoting the resolutions shows the same thing I already said, which is there was no new UN resolution specifically authorizing the use of force. Rather these general condemnations of terrorism just "reaffirm" the old Article 51, which also authorizes Israel to use military force against Palestinian and Arab terrorism.

[elke]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by takeo
However occupation is also a kind of blackmail and violence. How would you feel if Mexico was occupying Texas and would only give it back on some conditions?

It is a common misconception that Israel is strong and the Arabs weak. It's truly not as simple as that. In fact, the reason this whole thing started is that the Arab states thought that Israel was weak, and so decided to destroy her. As far as Mexico vs. Texas is concerned, I will defer to other people in this forum, who I am sure know more about the American history than I do, but if I remember correctly, Texas was originally Mexican. How it became American is a pretty ugly - albeit instructional - story. If you'd like, I will tell you what I know; but it's off topic.

i really condamn the suicide-actions, but sometimes i wonder what else could the palestinians dothan to use violence to force Israel to observe the un-resolutions, if no western state is ready to really pressure israel? Remember before the first intifafeh not a single israeli PM ever even considered it.

What do you mean? There are no other ways of making yourself heard than by murdering non-combatants?

Egypt got the Sinai back because it promised peace (the same the palestinians will promise), but also because israel could not afford to stay at war with a country of 50 millions of people. I think this negociations also came after quite some us-pressure on israel.

Israel can't afford to, and doesn't want to, stay at war with ANY of these people. It's not in Israel's interest, now or ever. Sadat realized that, and he also realized that it's not in Egypt's interest to stay at war. THAT's why it worked. Pressure has been applied on both, Sadat and Begin, - as it should have been. The result of that pressure was the peace agreement - as it should have been. Both sides got something they wanted in return for something the other wanted.

how do you know they can't or won't deliver peace once israel agrees to deliver its part of the deal?

Because Arafat said so, himself.

[takeo]

"Again, you're quoting the resolutions shows the same thing I already said, which is there was no new UN resolution specifically authorizing the use of force. Rather these general condemnations of terrorism just "reaffirm" the old Article 51, which also authorizes Israel to use military force against Palestinian and Arab terrorism."

this resolutions were specifically citing that use of force was possible, and the new concept was thatc anyone or any country that supported the 11/9 terrorists could be attacked as well.
the US actions were mostly in compliance with the new
un-resolutions and article 51.

the old article 51 did not autorize israel to attack egypt, did not autorize israel to continue occupying WB, gaza, and did not autorize israel to go attack countries supporting terrorism against israel.

[takeo]

"It is a common misconception that Israel is strong and the Arabs weak. It's truly not as simple as that. In fact, the reason this whole thing started is that the Arab states thought that Israel was weak, and so decided to destroy her. As far as Mexico vs. Texas is concerned, I will defer to other people in this forum, who I am sure know more about the American history than I do, but if I remember correctly, Texas was originally Mexican. How it became American is a pretty ugly - albeit instructional - story. If you'd like, I will tell you what I know; but it's off topic. "

Yep i know something about mexican history, that's why i took this example.
israel was quite weak in the 50's yet no single Arab country attacked it in that time, only since the 1967 the attacks against israel multiplied, certainly not because israel was considered weak.



"What do you mean? There are no other ways of making yourself heard than by murdering non-combatants? "

apparently not, israel never reacted to un-pressure to give in to its demands during many decades. there are other ways than attacking non-combattants however, i agree with this (attacking combatants! and civil disobediance)

"Israel can't afford to, and doesn't want to, stay at war with ANY of these people. It's not in Israel's interest, now or ever.Sadat realized that, and he also realized that it's not in Egypt's interest to stay at war. THAT's why it worked. "

that's absolutely right.

"Pressure has been applied on both, Sadat and Begin, - as it should have been. The result of that pressure was the peace agreement - as it should have been. Both sides got something they wanted in return for something the other wanted. "

President carter also pressured Begin to negociate about peace with the Palestinians, but he absolutely refused to talk about "giving away parts of Israel" (it was on one of the links i gave during a discussion with newsguy on this forum)
apparently israel considers the colonisation project of the WB and gaza to be more valuable than peace with the palestinians...
i agree tough that the palestinian question is more difficult than peace with egypt (because of the refugee-problem).

[elke]

"Yep i know something about mexican history, that's why i took this example.

That's fine. But do you know what actually happened with Texas?
And who ended up owning it?

israel was quite weak in the 50's yet no single Arab country attacked it in that time, only since the 1967 the attacks against israel multiplied, certainly not because israel was considered weak. "

After 1948 it became clear to the Arab states that Israel is not nearly as weak as they thought. It took them until 1967 to get organized sufficiently to where they felt they may be able to accomplish something. I had friends in Russia whose fathers were training Egyptian and Syrian troops in the '60s. The stories are hillarious! My uncle was in the army in 1967, and they were about to be put on planes to go and fight for the Egyptians! Actual boots on the ground!

there are other ways than attacking non-combattants however, i agree with this (attacking combatants! and civil disobediance)

If the combatants were the ones attacked, I would believe that the problem may be "occupation". This is painful since I have 6 cousins in the IDF; but at least the "cause" would be clearer. Shooting up babies and blowing up the elderly is inexcusable under ANY circumstances. It just reeks of wanton, murderous hatred.

[Mediocrates]

This is absurd - here we have a person advocating shooting Jews. Enough said. Let's kill all the takeos of the world.

[takeo]

"This is absurd - here we have a person advocating shooting Jews. Enough said. Let's kill all the takeos of the world."

I don't care if they are Jew or Zimbabwean, if they are belonging to an occupation force everyone has the right to shoot them.
If you think Jews have special rights that's your problem, i don't think so, Jews are a people as every other people in the world, not less rights or not more rights.
my grandfather fought the occupying nazi's in Russia and probably shot some Germans, i'm very proud about that.

"That's fine. But do you know what actually happened with Texas?
And who ended up owning it? "

i have read something about it, but i could use some additional history-courses about this :p
a state producing the Bush-family must have had a very tragic history!!!

yes, i think the Arab states were too weak to attack israel, that's why israel attacked first in 1955 and 1967. but those wars have resulted in the acceleration of the arab armies (with soviet aid indeed). In the 1973-war israel was nearly defeated.

"If the combatants were the ones attacked, I would believe that the problem may be "occupation". This is painful since I have 6 cousins in the IDF; but at least the "cause" would be clearer. Shooting up babies and blowing up the elderly is inexcusable under ANY circumstances. It just reeks of wanton, murderous hatred"

i agree that such actions are totally unacceptable and give the wrong message to the israeli people, yet palestinians supporting suicide-bombers see it as a desperate act to get rid of occupation by a much stronger ennemy, not because they want to kill as many israeli as possible because of their anti-semitism.

[cerulean]

Originally posted by takeo

i have read something about it, but i could use some additional history-courses about this :p
a state producing the Bush-family must have had a very tragic history!!!


Texas did not produce the Bush family. They are fully a product of the Connecticut WASP upper crust establishment class. The 43rd president moved to Texas around the age of 6, if I recall correctly, when his father decided to enter the oil business.

[takeo]

thanks for the information, i didn't know this.
by the way, are there in texas or other southern states of the US still mexican traditions in the mentality or society?

[elke]

i agree that such actions are totally unacceptable and give the wrong message to the israeli people, yet palestinians supporting suicide-bombers see it as a desperate act to get rid of occupation by a much stronger ennemy, not because they want to kill as many israeli as possible because of their anti-semitism.

I know how the Palestinians see it, but I disagree that they don't want to kill as many Israelis as possible: they DO! That's the whole purpose of such operations. Moreover, regardless of WHY they do these things, these things are simply wrong. If they don't even understand that concept, I don't know how they intend to become a modern state.

i have read something about it, but i could use some additional history-courses about this
a state producing the Bush-family must have had a very tragic history!!!

All right, I am going out on a limb here... :D
Mexico had Texas. It was almost empty, except for the indigenous Native American tribes and about 4000 Mexican people. Americans of European descent asked Mexico if they can settle in Texas, and Mexico allowed it under certain conditions - such as conversion to Catholicism and becoming Mexican citizens. 300 American families came in in 1820's. Additional families came in, by hook and by crook, who were Protestant. Mexico sent in troops to enforce their rule (Catholicism, etc.). When General Santa Ana came to power in Mexico and abolished the Constitution, the Americans in Texas decided to rebel. After numerous battles, in 1836, the Republic of Texas was established. After more battles, the Texans won their independence. Texas became "the Lone Star Republic". Prior to the Civil War, there was disagreement between the North and South on whether or not to annex Texas. In 1845, finally, Texas was admitted to the Union. There were disputes over the exact border until the end of the Mexican War in 1898 - in which US won not only Texas but also New Mexico.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by takeo
I don't care if they are Jew or Zimbabwean, if they are belonging to an occupation force everyone has the right to shoot them.
If you think Jews have special rights that's your problem, i don't think so, Jews are a people as every other people in the world, not less rights or not more rights.
my grandfather fought the occupying nazi's in Russia and probably shot some Germans, i'm very proud about that.

yes, i think the Arab states were too weak to attack israel, that's why israel attacked first in 1955 and 1967. but those wars have resulted in the acceleration of the arab armies (with soviet aid indeed). In the 1973-war israel was nearly defeated.

i agree that such actions are totally unacceptable and give the wrong message to the israeli people, yet palestinians supporting suicide-bombers see it as a desperate act to get rid of occupation by a much stronger ennemy, not because they want to kill as many israeli as possible because of their anti-semitism.

Israel's Arab enemies have been trying to occupy Israel since it was founded. The fact that the invaders were defeated, and Israel captured territory in defeating them, does not make the West Bank and Gaza "occupied" territory. In an important legal sense, it makes it "captured" and/or "disputed" territory.

To wit, Israel's Arab enemies have no more right to shoot at Israelis as they have a right to destroy Israel.

You demonstrate how willing you are to distort reality when you claim that the Arab states were too weak to attack Israel in 1967. They were attacking nearly every day (guerrila operations), blocked Israeli shipping lanes, massed their armies, and trumpeted their plans to destroy Israel over the airwaves.

You say terrorist attacks are "totally unacceptable" and then, like any good terrorist apologist, you excuse such attacks as "desperate" and aimed at ending the "occupation."

If suicide attacks are intended to end the "occupation," then why have they continued for so long? They have done absolutely nothing to end the "occupation" -- the closest the Palestinians came to that was Barak's peace proposal which they rejected not over "occupation" but settling one million Arabs inside Israel.

[takeo]

"I know how the Palestinians see it, but I disagree that they don't want to kill as many Israelis as possible: they DO! That's the whole purpose of such operations. Moreover, regardless of WHY they do these things, these things are simply wrong. If they don't even understand that concept, I don't know how they intend to become a modern state. "

i agree such methos are wrong, but many Palestinians don't understand this because they have lived trough generations of misery exactly because of israel and they believe most israeli support the policy of their government. Most don't understand however that such actions are harming their cause.



"All right, I am going out on a limb here...
Mexico had Texas. It was almost empty, except for the indigenous Native American tribes and about 4000 Mexican people. Americans of European descent asked Mexico if they can settle in Texas, and Mexico allowed it under certain conditions - such as conversion to Catholicism and becoming Mexican citizens. 300 American families came in in 1820's. Additional families came in, by hook and by crook, who were Protestant. Mexico sent in troops to enforce their rule (Catholicism, etc.). When General Santa Ana came to power in Mexico and abolished the Constitution, the Americans in Texas decided to rebel. After numerous battles, in 1836, the Republic of Texas was established. After more battles, the Texans won their independence. Texas became "the Lone Star Republic". Prior to the Civil War, there was disagreement between the North and South on whether or not to annex Texas. In 1845, finally, Texas was admitted to the Union. There were disputes over the exact border until the end of the Mexican War in 1898 - in which US won not only Texas but also New Mexico."

thanks
I think the Mexicans should not have been so lasy and colonise it before the cowboys took over, but that just my opinion ;)





"Israel's Arab enemies have been trying to occupy Israel since it was founded. The fact that the invaders were defeated, and Israel captured territory in defeating them, does not make the West Bank and Gaza "occupied" territory. In an important legal sense, it makes it "captured" and/or "disputed" territory. "

it is not because you won a war that you can annex occupied territory, read the un-charter or the geneva-conventions please!
the word "captured" territory is not a legal term, it means exactly the same as occupied. Disputed is only used when referring to a conflict where it is not clear who owns the land (for example Kashmir) but in Israel every country and the UN agrees that those territories are not belonging to israel, and since a few years they have been recognised as belonging to the palestinians, who have their own representatives in the UN since the 80's.



"You demonstrate how willing you are to distort reality when you claim that the Arab states were too weak to attack Israel in 1967. They were attacking nearly every day (guerrila operations), blocked Israeli shipping lanes, massed their armies, and trumpeted their plans to destroy Israel over the airwaves. "

But if they felt stronger, they would probably have invaded israel.

"You say terrorist attacks are "totally unacceptable" and then, like any good terrorist apologist, you excuse such attacks as "desperate" and aimed at ending the "occupation."

it's not an excuse, i told you already, it's a logical reason (which doesn't make it legal or good) why they are using such methods.
Israel's incursions are logical too as a responce to terrorism, but it doesn't make it legal or good.

"If suicide attacks are intended to end the "occupation," then why have they continued for so long? They have done absolutely nothing to end the "occupation" -- the closest the Palestinians came to that was Barak's peace proposal which they rejected not over "occupation" but settling one million Arabs inside Israel. "

because both the refugee-question and a palestinian state are absolutely crucial and basic demands for the palestinian people.
as mentioned in many other posts, not only by myself, there can't be real peace without a solution for the millions of etnically cleansed people. (a compromise solution accepted by both sides, which means there can be a compromise with respect to israel's demographic concerns and with respect to the un-resolutions )

[elke]

i agree such methos are wrong, but many Palestinians don't understand this because they have lived trough generations of misery exactly because of israel and they believe most israeli support the policy of their government. Most don't understand however that such actions are harming their cause.

So, by your logic, the Jews should have used suicide bombers in Russia, Poland, Romania, Germany, Hungary, Iraq, Syria, Morocco, Yemen, etc. etc. They have been oppressed in all these places for much longer than the 50 years Palestinians claim. If you are correct in your assumption, I don't see how a Palestinian State will help alleviate that.

I think the Mexicans should not have been so lasy and colonise it before the cowboys took over, but that just my opinion

What? "Colonize it"? I thought in your opinion, "colonialism" is wrong! :D

the word "captured" territory is not a legal term, it means exactly the same as occupied.

No, but the word "disputed" is a legal term

Disputed is only used when referring to a conflict where it is not clear who owns the land (for example Kashmir) but in Israel every country and the UN agrees that those territories are not belonging to israel, and since a few years they have been recognised as belonging to the palestinians, who have their own representatives in the UN since the 80's.

If Kashmir is "disputed", I don't know how anyone can say that the WB, Gaza, and especially Jerusalem aren't. As I understand it, Kashmir was historically part of Indian hegemony (which is the basis of Indian claim on it), - as was Jerusalem as a capital of Judea.

But if they felt stronger, they would probably have invaded israel.

Exactly. That's what they were waiting for - to get stronger. In '73 Israel almost lost it because Golda Meir blinked. And Israel already had WB and Sinai! What would have happened if they didn't?

As far as what Nasser "promised" - well, I can just imagine the Holocaust survivors "returning to their homeland". That would have been nice, wouldn't it? Wonder what would have happened to the Russian "refuseniks" or to the Iraqi and Syrian Jews, upon their return to the "country of origin". Do you even understand what Nasser's "solution" implied? Think it through: what about children born in Israel, whose parents came from elsewhere? The whole thing is ludicrous.

[takeo]

"So, by your logic, the Jews should have used suicide bombers in Russia, Poland, Romania, Germany, Hungary, Iraq, Syria, Morocco, Yemen, etc. etc. They have been oppressed in all these places for much longer than the 50 years Palestinians claim. If you are correct in your assumption, I don't see how a Palestinian State will help alleviate that. "

No, i said that such indiscriminate methods are WRONG. but yes jews could have used violence, they did by the way, in Warsawa for example.


"What? "Colonize it"? I thought in your opinion, "colonialism" is wrong! "

yeah, but if one have to choose between yankee-colonisation and mexican colonisation i prefere mexican, nicer people :D
there weren't geneva-conventions in the 19th century


"If Kashmir is "disputed", I don't know how anyone can say that the WB, Gaza, and especially Jerusalem aren't. As I understand it, Kashmir was historically part of Indian hegemony (which is the basis of Indian claim on it), - as was Jerusalem as a capital of Judea. "

i don't know so much about kashmir, but as far as i know the un has not recognised strict borders between the two countries in that particular region. in the case of israel, the pre-1967 borders are the official ones used by the un and nearly every country in the world.



"Exactly. That's what they were waiting for - to get stronger. In '73 Israel almost lost it because Golda Meir blinked. And Israel already had WB and Sinai! What would have happened if they didn't? "

if they didn't they wouldn't have attacked, the 1967-war and occupation was the reason for the arab assault in 1973.
arab countries never invaded israel in the period between 1948 and 1973.

"As far as what Nasser "promised" - well, I can just imagine the Holocaust survivors "returning to their homeland". That would have been nice, wouldn't it? Wonder what would have happened to the Russian "refuseniks" or to the Iraqi and Syrian Jews, upon their return to the "country of origin". Do you even understand what Nasser's "solution" implied? Think it through: what about children born in Israel, whose parents came from elsewhere? The whole thing is ludicrous."

that's right, that's exactly why i recognise israel, it was a country build on the wrong ideology, i still don't like the idea of zionism, but now it is a fact, people can't return because they are no longer Russians, syrians, etc. but israeli of mixed origin mostly who speak Hebrew, a new people is born, so one should recognise israel. (on the condition that palestinians have their rights too).

[elke]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by takeo
[B]"So, by your logic, the Jews should have used suicide bombers in Russia, Poland, Romania, Germany, Hungary, Iraq, Syria, Morocco, Yemen, etc. etc. They have been oppressed in all these places for much longer than the 50 years Palestinians claim. If you are correct in your assumption, I don't see how a Palestinian State will help alleviate that. "

No, i said that such indiscriminate methods are WRONG. but yes jews could have used violence, they did by the way, in Warsawa for example.

??? Where did you get that? Are you talking about the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising during WWII? If so, where are the "indiscriminate methods" in that case? Did the Jews shoot down Polish and/or German children?

"What? "Colonize it"? I thought in your opinion, "colonialism" is wrong! "

yeah, but if one have to choose between yankee-colonisation and mexican colonisation i prefere mexican, nicer people :D
there weren't geneva-conventions in the 19th century

You are kidding, right? How are the Mexican people "nicer"? The Spaniards ravaged the Aztecs, the Aztecs ravaged the Maya and other indigenous tribes... Yes, human sacrifice vs. running cattle... hmmm, I wonder what you would choose...


"If Kashmir is "disputed", I don't know how anyone can say that the WB, Gaza, and especially Jerusalem aren't. As I understand it, Kashmir was historically part of Indian hegemony (which is the basis of Indian claim on it), - as was Jerusalem as a capital of Judea. "

i don't know so much about kashmir, but as far as i know the un has not recognised strict borders between the two countries in that particular region. in the case of israel, the pre-1967 borders are the official ones used by the un and nearly every country in the world.

You obviously don't know so much about Israel, either. The "pre-1967 borders" are not clear as day, to the UN or to anyone other than the Hamas: namely, no Israel at all.


"Exactly. That's what they were waiting for - to get stronger. In '73 Israel almost lost it because Golda Meir blinked. And Israel already had WB and Sinai! What would have happened if they didn't? "

if they didn't they wouldn't have attacked, the 1967-war and occupation was the reason for the arab assault in 1973.
arab countries never invaded israel in the period between 1948 and 1973.

Please tell me you are kidding. They attacked in 1948, they were about to attack in 1967, and they attacked in 1973. Period. End of story. What "occupation" was the reason for the Arab assault in 1948?

"As far as what Nasser "promised" - well, I can just imagine the Holocaust survivors "returning to their homeland". That would have been nice, wouldn't it? Wonder what would have happened to the Russian "refuseniks" or to the Iraqi and Syrian Jews, upon their return to the "country of origin". Do you even understand what Nasser's "solution" implied? Think it through: what about children born in Israel, whose parents came from elsewhere? The whole thing is ludicrous."

that's right, that's exactly why i recognise israel, it was a country build on the wrong ideology, i still don't like the idea of zionism, but now it is a fact, people can't return because they are no longer Russians, syrians, etc. but israeli of mixed origin mostly who speak Hebrew, a new people is born, so one should recognise israel. (on the condition that palestinians have their rights too).

Get it through your head: these are NOT "new people". These are the same people that followed Moses (or whoever) out of Egypt. Moreover, you and I belong to these same people; and if -and when - the world again decides that things are really bad, and it's all the Jews' fault, you and I may well meet there.

[takeo]

"??? Where did you get that? Are you talking about the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising during WWII? If so, where are the "indiscriminate methods" in that case? Did the Jews shoot down Polish and/or German children? "

no, i said that was a case of justified violence, as palestinians shooting at idf, not indiscriminate violence.



"You are kidding, right? How are the Mexican people "nicer"? The Spaniards ravaged the Aztecs, the Aztecs ravaged the Maya and other indigenous tribes... Yes, human sacrifice vs. running cattle... hmmm, I wonder what you would choose... "

yes i was kidding of course, yet i still find mexicans nicer people in general than americans. the us-history by the way isn't all honey and moonshine either.




"You obviously don't know so much about Israel, either. The "pre-1967 borders" are not clear as day, to the UN or to anyone other than the Hamas: namely, no Israel at all. "

the pre-1967 borders were very clear and were the recognised borders at the moment israel was recognised by the un, no discussion about it, even the official map used by the us-administration is the one of israel in its pre-1967 borders.




"Please tell me you are kidding. They attacked in 1948, they were about to attack in 1967, and they attacked in 1973. Period. End of story. "

they didn't attack between 1949 and 1973, during that period israel attacked twice, tell me who is the belligerent?




"Get it through your head: these are NOT "new people". These are the same people that followed Moses (or whoever) out of Egypt. Moreover, you and I belong to these same people; and if -and when - the world again decides that things are really bad, and it's all the Jews' fault, you and I may well meet there."

Jewish people are not really a people, i have very few in common with ethiopian Jews, much more with you or with an average frenchman without jewish roots.
When going to israel i observed a new mentality, a new country, a new language (modern hebrew) not existing before as a spoken language for many centuries, in fact a people of very different origin who build a new country. YOU are american of russian-jewish origin, you are not israeli, people in israel think different than american jews, speak another language, they are another people.
I think the biggest causes of anti-semitism in the world today is exactly the policy of israel...

[elke]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by takeo
no, i said that was a case of justified violence, as palestinians shooting at idf, not indiscriminate violence.

OK - Question: would the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising participants be justified IF they attacked German women and children, who had nothing to do directly with the Nazi policies?

yes i was kidding of course, yet i still find mexicans nicer people in general than americans. the us-history by the way isn't all honey and moonshine either.

I beg to differ, American history has quite a bit of moonshine in it ;). That's a rather sweeping statement you are making, btw: Mexicans vs. Americans!

the pre-1967 borders were very clear and were the recognised borders at the moment israel was recognised by the un, no discussion about it, even the official map used by the us-administration is the one of israel in its pre-1967 borders.

Wrong, but this subject has been discussed ad nauseam by now, so I am not going to get into this.

they didn't attack between 1949 and 1973, during that period israel attacked twice, tell me who is the belligerent?

This is another subject that, frankly, is no use to discuss. I don't know if this is a language problem or what, but I don't think we will ever agree.

Jewish people are not really a people, i have very few in common with ethiopian Jews, much more with you or with an average frenchman without jewish roots.
When going to israel i observed a new mentality, a new country, a new language (modern hebrew) not existing before as a spoken language for many centuries, in fact a people of very different origin who build a new country. YOU are american of russian-jewish origin, you are not israeli, people in israel think different than american jews, speak another language, they are another people.
I think the biggest causes of anti-semitism in the world today is exactly the policy of israel...

I disagree. I find that I have more in common with the Ethiopian Jews than I do with you, apparently, as far as my worldview is concerned anyway. I also find that I have more in common with an average Israeli than with an average American. I like US very much, I am very grateful to them for their acceptance and am proud to pay my taxes and do what I can to improve this society. However, after 21 years in this country, marriage to a "true-blue" American, and 3 American children, I have a difficult time understanding how they see things. When I went to Israel, my first reaction was: "Home! I am home!" Why am I not there? Well, that's a long story. If you want, I will tell you another time.

[takeo]

"OK - Question: would the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising participants be justified IF they attacked German women and children, who had nothing to do directly with the Nazi policies? "

no, they would not.


"this subject has been discussed ad nauseam by now, so I am not going to get into this. "

that's right, but facts are facts and don't even need to be discussed.





"I disagree. I find that I have more in common with the Ethiopian Jews than I do with you, apparently, as far as my worldview is concerned anyway."

even if you wished so, you would still have more in common with me, because you have your Russian-western background, which may considerably differ with mine, but we are similar compared to an Ethiopian woman who has her roots in an ethiopian mountain-village.


"I also find that I have more in common with an average Israeli than with an average American. I like US very much, I am very grateful to them for their acceptance and am proud to pay my taxes and do what I can to improve this society. However, after 21 years in this country, marriage to a "true-blue" American, and 3 American children, I have a difficult time understanding how they see things. When I went to Israel, my first reaction was: "Home! I am home!" Why am I not there? Well, that's a long story. If you want, I will tell you another time."

ok, i'm interested, really.
But i think that's just the idea that you like israel, when i go to for example Cambodia or Laos, or, why not, israel, i like the way people think and act, but i don't have their culture, mentality, etc; for a start you can't even understand their language i guess;
you lived in the us and Russia, and that makes you completely different from someone who lived many years in israel.
different environment, different people, remember.

[Iori Yagami]

Originally posted by takeo


No, i said that such indiscriminate methods are WRONG. but yes jews could have used violence, they did by the way, in Warsawa for example.

If you are comparing the Warsaw ghetto to whatever happens in the WB, you are either a very ignorant person, a very stupid person, or a pretty damn good combination of the both.
The Warsaw ghetto wasn`t built for the jews to live there, it was build as a concentration camp, from which jews were to be moved to the death camps, to Aushwitz, Treblinka, or any other of 'Club-Med"s that the nazis have built across europe. The uprising at the ghetto occured only after the jews understood that they all would be slaughtered.
I haven`t yet seen Israeli soldiers building gas chambers next to Ramalla or Jenin, did you?

[elke]

Approximately 1,000,000 people have come to Israel from FSU - almost 20%. About 65 of them belong to my "immediate" family (aunts, uncles, cousins, second cousins, etc.) and friends I have known for so long, that they might as well be "family". In addition, among the "Founding Fathers", to borrow the term from American history, there were many people with my background. The influence of all these people on the overall culture of Israel is enormous! Is it any wonder that I would feel more in common with an average Israeli than with an average American?

Thanks to a nice young man I met in my teens, I know some Hebrew. When I was in Israel (twice, actually: once for 2 1/2 months, and once for about 2 months), I found it possible to communicate in it without much trouble. Now it's rusty, but I am trying to correct that and teach myself and my kids simultaneously.

I find that in the ME crisis, "facts" are not necessarily "facts": there is much disagreement on them. This is largely due to the high emotional content of the subject matter, as well as much "propaganda" and sometimes, outright lies. Yori is right about the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising: it did not happen simply because people were put there, but rather when they realized that they were going to be gone anyway. I was fortunate to have met a young woman, both of whose parents were involved in that Uprising - that's how they saw it, too.

[takeo]

"If you are comparing the Warsaw ghetto to whatever happens in the WB, you are either a very ignorant person, a very stupid person, or a pretty damn good combination of the both.
The Warsaw ghetto wasn`t built for the jews to live there, it was build as a concentration camp, from which jews were to be moved to the death camps, to Aushwitz, Treblinka, or any other of 'Club-Med"s that the nazis have built across europe. The uprising at the ghetto occured only after the jews understood that they all would be slaughtered.
I haven`t yet seen Israeli soldiers building gas chambers next to Ramalla or Jenin, did you?"

the WB and gaza are no club med either...
but i agree there is a big difference, but that's not the point, i never said that the WB and Gaza are like the ghetto, just that the use of violence in some circumstances is allowed. (however WB and gaza are a kind of ghetto too, people can't go in or out, most of them come from areas where they have been etnic cleansed a long time ago, but they are not going to be exterminated or going anywhere (well with likud in power you may never be too sure...)



"Approximately 1,000,000 people have come to Israel from FSU - almost 20%. About 65 of them belong to my "immediate" family (aunts, uncles, cousins, second cousins, etc.) and friends I have known for so long, that they might as well be "family". In addition, among the "Founding Fathers", to borrow the term from American history, there were many people with my background. The influence of all these people on the overall culture of Israel is enormous! Is it any wonder that I would feel more in common with an average Israeli than with an average American? "

It's true that Russian jews had a great influence on Israel, but other people live in israel too, of sephardic origin, or western european origin, and only the environment in israel will make them quite different from you, who also has been influenced by living in the the US, if yo like it or not.
Two brothers may be the same, but if one moves to israel and another to the States, and meet eachother after 10 or 20 years, they will be different.
it's good that you know some hebrew, this is really too hard for me, i would love to know it!!!



"I find that in the ME crisis, "facts" are not necessarily "facts": there is much disagreement on them. This is largely due to the high emotional content of the subject matter, as well as much "propaganda" and sometimes, outright lies. "

that's right, but facts are still facts, how they will be interpreted is something that is influenced by the emotional and subjective way people look upon the middl east.
facts are clearly different from lies, or half truth, that's right.
But i think everyone will agree about the facts in 1967 (some will interprete them as israel who started the war, others will say arab countries provoked israel, but nobody can deny that israel started the war by invading egypt before anyone invaded israel, which is exactly the definition of "launching a war")

[Mediocrates]

Who started the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the American Revolution, the Korean Police action?

All of those governments are therefore illegal and must be punished by the UN then? By my tally:

America started the revolution - so we must tear down the American government

French middle class and peasants started the French revolution - so we must imprison all French middle class and poor people.

We must Sanction the CCCP

We must Sanction North Korea and China

And as far as those French and Indians in Canada - damn them to hell.